Finally Amusing Ourselves to Death, Open Thread: Ch. 3 & 4
So, here we are again!
I thought these chapters were particularly fascinating. I think he might be exaggerating the bliss of typography, but I also think he nails the decontextualized, irrelevant nature of the news industry.
Yes, the nature of discourse in the 1700 & 1800′s was formed like print, but oratory still cannot be called “typography” in any sense, even if the speakers were reading and even if the structures were complex. So, he was stretching the typography point, but using the word language or exposition was more accurate.
An overemphasis on rationality, austerity, and depersonalization — as he shows the medium of the 1700-1800′s encouraged — perhaps deserved a reaction. Perhaps I have not literally applauded a paragraph read, but I have paused, reread, savored, and yes, even verbally responded to apt wordings. Who has not laughed aloud while reading? Who has not felt the urgency to share a particular paragraph with someone — anyone — so they can share in the joy of it with you? If the rationalism of the 1700′s was so “objective” and dispassionate, then it needed some sort of jolt. Of course, instead it was completely overthrown.
Postman sums up the particularity of photography/images as opposed to language that made Tolkien wary even of illustrations in books. Tolkien was aimed at myth (which Postman also defines nicely), and images cannot hit upon something as grand, abstract, and ideal as that. Imagery by its nature cannot portray a proposition or an argument or an idea or anything abstract. It may perhaps suggest such, but it cannot mean anything but particularity: a tree, not Tree; a man, not Man; a wave or storm, not the Sea.
Postman also goes into information/news/facts as commodity, as trivia, and pointless but entertaining and now seemingly necessary tidbits. I don’t really feel I should go on about this part, because I do agree vehemently with all his points here, I don’t appreciate pop culture, I don’t participate in much pop culture, I don’t keep up with “news of the day,” and so I don’t want to come across as self-righteous when trash-talking what I don’t really like anyway. :)
Instead, I will point out that I do agree that the important news to us should be the local news, and not the local “news of the day” or human interest stories, but local political and social issues. Who cares why and how Michael Jackson died? Who cares about Jon & Kate’s divorce? If you care, do you care as much about your neighbors’ children and marriages? And if you did, wouldn’t you simply be labeled a busy-body and a gossip? I’m only disappointed that I did know who Jon and Kate where. Thanks, Mom. :)
Of course, Postman’s point that you can’t do anything about most of the news you get today, seems also to apply to his Lincoln/Douglas debate audience. What was Joe Farmer in the North going to do about abolition? Also, while books certainly do take longer to produce and consume than newspapers (which are still mostly typographic, sorry Postman) and television, by no means do they all — or even most — participate in any way with the Great Conversation. By the looks of the library’s New Books RSS feed, most new books have much more in common with today’s sound byte, image-based culture than with any of the 1700 & 1800 writers Postman cited. So, as I said, I do think unfortunately that he was glamorizing the typographical nature and era, yet I don’t think that he’s overstating the case about the Age of Show Business.
Postman’s rant on fact accumulation and the non-learning that is has me wanting to go on an educational theory rant myself, but I’ll refrain — for now.
Let us also consider how the Internet similar and dissimilar. Certainly decontextualized, trivial, and irrelevant information abounds even more. The proliferation of facts to the detriment of ideas and argumentation is certainly a reality. The medium of instant communication apparently also encourages sloppiness and haste in writing, which is even further hindrance to real conversation. Five minutes on Facebook has me shuddering in fear for the future of the “language of Shakespeare, Milton, and the Bible.” Eliza Doolittle’s cockney accent has nothing on IM slang and the complete carelessness with words as evidenced on Facebook & Twitter and on many personal blogs and in many emails. The common masses loved Shakespeare in his day, but how can a culture such as this even produce a Shakespeare?
What say you?
Well, I too am ready to return to Mr. Postman!
“The printed page revealed the world, line by line, page by page, to be a serious, coherent place, capable of management by reason, and of improvement by logical and relevant criticism.” Wouldn’t it be lovely to live in such a world? No matter how sensible something sounds, it seems that you or somebody you know have heard of some situation where such and such didn’t work, etc. I feel like the most common response to most things is a shrug – how do you even start. Living in our modern culture feels like trying to walk through a rainstorm – where it’s literally raining cats and dogs, trying to catch the cats and dogs that you actually need while deflecting the rest with a flimsy umbrella. “The Overload Syndrome: Learning to Live Within Your Limits,” by Richard Swenson elaborates on this problem and offers solutions to help us poor souls deal with the tremendous information overload we suffer today.
I wonder though – was their world any more rational and controlled than ours, or did it just seem like it because the information you received was, well, limited.
I don’t have any problem trash-talking what I don’t like… :-) I have seen people stop what they’re doing 3 times an evening: 6:00, 8:00 and 10:00 to listen to “the news.” Why!? I wanted to ask, “has anything truly important happened in the last hour and a half?” It has a result alright – if you’re political party is in the ascendancy, you can be filled with warm fuzzies about how your people are doing so well – and when they’re losing the election, you can rant about the stupidity and lack of education of so many Americans. It’s probably bad for one’s blood pressure, really. And in the end – maybe, possibly, an “email to your representative,” – and this for political news, not the tales of disasters and tragedy, and gossip most news consists of. (I think, though I can’t say for sure, having watched so little of it) We subscribe to World, and I’m continually amazed at how little being 2 weeks behind the times has affected my life in the last 8 years!
And I definitely have, “laughed aloud while reading. [And felt] the urgency to share a particular paragraph with someone — anyone — so they can share in the joy of it with you? ” My dad’s like that, too – drives my mom crazy sometimes! :-)
That was a good point, Mystie, that perhaps the super-rational world of the 1700s and 1800s needed to be shaken up a little. That’s the lovely thing about being a postmillenialist. Even in the face of the apparent destruction of a culture, you can feel secure knowing that God will build again and this time better than before – last time Shakespeare – who knows what’s next?! :-)
Before I post my thoughts on these parts…
“I don’t appreciate pop culture, I don’t participate in much pop culture”
What is your definition of pop culture here, and what would you oppose it to?
Pop culture would be that which is produced for mass consumption, created in order to be obsolete, created to be “hip” immediately but not last, created and produced solely for profit and popularity. Folk or high culture proves itself over time, outlasts its “shelf life,” is generally non-commercial (not advertised widely on tv and such), and created with some true artistic or literary or philosophical impulse. So, your indie bands would be more folk culture, whereas the top-40 stuff is pop culture. Pop culture is packaged and produced and instantly popular — because it’s made to be so and we (the society) are lemmings who don’t want to be out of date and believe whatever commercials and industries and fashionistas tell us.
What always rankles me is all the trademarked and licensed-character products on children’s shoes and clothes. I refuse to brand my children (“branded” = identify yourself with a brand, “my brand”) or let some marketing company use them as free billboards for their product or name or logo or movie. And, admittedly, part of the reason I won’t do logoed clothes or screenprinted clothes or character clothes is that I am not going keep up with what is currently cool or what connotations each branding carries and yet I do care enough to not want them to appear stupidly outdated — like if they wore a Lion King t-shirt (and here is where you tell me Lion King is “in” again or something). I don’t wanna mess with with it, so my boys wear solid tees and I have to search high and low for plain athletic shoes. So, that unrelated rant basically boils down to, if it’s plastered all over kids’ t-shirts and caps at Walmart and Target, it’s pop culture and I ain’t participating. :)
Pop culture, like the “news of the day,” is made to be immediate and then to die to make way for the next thing.
“Of course, Postman’s point that you can’t do anything about most of the news you get today, seems also to apply to his Lincoln/Douglas debate audience. What was Joe Farmer in the North going to do about abolition? “
That is an excellent point and it turns his argument on its head. If trivial, irrelevant information that doesn’t pertain to us at all is a huge problem, why does it begin and end at news? All those Asimov books on the solar system I checked out from the library as a kid? Those Desert or Jungle books? Books that talk about turtles, wolves and foxes? Those pertain as much to me as a tsunami on the other side of the world. Not at all. It’s just useless information cluttering my head. Am I really any better off for having it or does it distract me from information I can actually use?
What would be Postman’s thoughts on learning Latin?